Moral Arguments Against Euthanasia
Opposition to the right to die movement is mostly led by people who believe that euthanasia is ruining the sanctity of life. The sanctity of life often refers to the idea that human life is sacred and should not be tampered with regardless of the person. However, recently the quality of life is being preferred over sanctity, and for good reason. The quality of life refers to the fact that life should be lived to the fullest it can. Medically speaking, the quality of life is a patient's general well-being. If a patient has an extremely low quality of life and understands what they are doing, they should be able to choose if they would like to medically end their own life. People also believe that it should not be someone's choice when they
…show more content…
The moral argument for euthanasia is most often the argument that voluntary active euthanasia should be legal. In a case when a patient has no possible road to recovery from their terminal illness, is suffering from their condition, and is still mentally capable of making justified decisions, the request to terminate their life should not be denied. Euthanasia is also a way to remove suffering in both voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. In the case of non-voluntary euthanasia, it would be sparing their suffering in the outcome that they do regain a conscious state, but with a low quality of life. In the case of a family member going through this situation, most people would want to see their relative free of pain, even if it means the end of their life. The cost of healthcare can also greatly impact cases, proving a beneficial reason for the use of euthanasia. Many physicians due to their obligations in the medical field will keep a patient alive as long as possible, causing the cost of being terminally ill to skyrocket. The legalization of assisted suicide/euthanasia could prevent the financial problems that come with being terminally ill. Those that are terminally ill more than likely need to take a leave from work severely cutting their income, while having their expenses rise at a rapid rate to due variations of medical treatment. Figure 2 shows a chart of how terminally ill patients effect their family
The moral argument for euthanasia is most often the argument that voluntary active euthanasia should be legal. In a case when a patient has no possible road to recovery from their terminal illness, is suffering from their condition, and is still mentally capable of making justified decisions, the request to terminate their life should not be denied. Euthanasia is also a way to remove suffering in both voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. In the case of non-voluntary euthanasia, it would be sparing their suffering in the outcome that they do regain a conscious state, but with a low quality of life. In the case of a family member going through this situation, most people would want to see their relative free of pain, even if it means the end of their life. The cost of healthcare can also greatly impact cases, proving a beneficial reason for the use of euthanasia. Many physicians due to their obligations in the medical field will keep a patient alive as long as possible, causing the cost of being terminally ill to skyrocket. The legalization of assisted suicide/euthanasia could prevent the financial problems that come with being terminally ill. Those that are terminally ill more than likely need to take a leave from work severely cutting their income, while having their expenses rise at a rapid rate to due variations of medical treatment. Figure 2 shows a chart of how terminally ill patients effect their family